Monday, September 13, 2004

The Flying Wedge

I find it deeply unfortunate and potentially disastrous that the Pentagon "missile" is becoming something of a wedge issue for 9/11 skeptics.

Funny things did happen at the Pentagon that morning, but in my estimation the missile theory doesn't rise above the folkloric. There is simply too much to counter the fantastic claim for the 9/11 truth movement to be squandering its integrity on such speculation. Here, and from what the general public would call "conspiracy" sites, is a compilation of evidence for Flight 77 striking the Pentagon, here are photos of the plane's wreckage, and here's a refutation of the missile theory by respected Washington-based researcher John Judge.

Something to consider: when an anomalous event occurs, like a jet striking the Pentagon, we ought to make allowance for anomalous evidence. Yes, the hole looks too small, but with what do we have to compare the event? The walls of the structure - particularly the virtually empty side the plane went 270 degrees out of its way to hit, which had been hardened against attack - are much stronger than those of the WTC. So what's it supposed to look like?

For me, here's what knocks down the missile theory: did the conspirators need a missile to produce the desired result? No, they didn't. And that's not to say Hani Hanjour was at the helm. He couldn't fly a Cessna the month before. Hanjour didn't perform those high speed aerobatic maneuvers that had a flight controller believe she was tracking a fighter jet, and hit the ground floor without scraping the Pentagon's lawn. He was such a poor pilot, a flight school manager who'd tried to instruct him in January 2001 said "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," and reported him to the FAA to have his license revoked. (How he got the license in the first place, the FBI isn't telling.) In August 2001, just three weeks before the attack, the flight school instructor who refused the hapless Hanjour rental of a Cessna tried to talk him out of ever becoming a pilot. Yet regarding Flight 77, "aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm."

Here's the cockpit of a Cessna, with which Hanjour couldn't cope in August.

And here's the cockpit of a 757, which Hani Hanjour first entered on September 11, and we're told mastered on the fly to control the huge jet's 500 mph, 270-degree spiralling descent to a level entry of the ground floor of the one side of the Pentagon which had been hardened against attack, and was virtually empty owing to construction.

So no, it wasn't Hanjour flying that thing. So what was?

There was no guided missile, but I believe control of the aircraft was taken from Hanjour in flight so Flight 77 would behave as a guided missile. We're not talking science fiction. The technology exists, and at the heart of the Pentagon. For instance, a month before the attacks, weapons' giant Raytheon had remote-flown a FedEx 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico air force base in August 2001, without a pilot. (It may be worth noting that Raytheon employees were on at least three of the four flights, and on Flight 77 was Stanley Hall, director of program management for Raytheon's Electronics Warfare Division. A colleague called him "our dean of electronic warfare.") The incredible story that none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable, when any one of which failures would have been a first for the system - black boxes are mounted in the tail sections - deserves more attention. As does Dov Zakheim: then-Pentagon Comptroller and PNACer, whose System Planning Corporation "designs, manufactures and distributes highly sophisticated technology that enables an operator to fly by remote control as many as eight different airborne vehicles at the same time from one position either on the ground or airborne."

Substituting the flight with a missile, disposing of the plane and its people, risking detection in broad daylight before witnesses who could have been taking pictures - none of that needed to be chanced.

Until we know, we cannot act. And if we act on rumor and impulse then we are no less a slave than those who live in the denial that the propaganda machines promote. So, be cynical and question things, but be analytical and scientific so you can approach the truth when you speak. Three truths don't make a fourth just by mentioning them. All lies, in fact, depend on having elements of the truth in them for verismilitude as its called. Read, don't repeat what you last heard. And if you are going to be more than a theorist, then give conspiracy the respect it deserves, and prove it.

There's much more deserving of our time, reputations and resources than perpetuating the urban myth of the missile theory. Just because the "official story" - which is itself a conspiracy theory - is intellectually lazy, is no excuse why our competing narratives ought to be.

68 Comments:

Jeff, great blog, you do great work. I was wondering if you'd have something like this... I've been trying to put together a document that tracks the oddities that occured on 9/11 and link them to reputable news sources (i.e. ones that even a conservative would believe). I've been having trouble finding reputable news sources on things like the missing Pentagon tapes, the 20 mile debrise field in PA, the siesmic shocks recorded when the towers fell, building 7 and the "pull it" remark, the 7 trash can FAA fiasco, etc., etc. I'm suprised no-one's done a document like this. Your "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11" post was close but referenced a bunch of fairly questionable sources (as well as many very solid sources). Do you know of such a compilation? Also - I'd be interested to hear your ideas of why none of this is being covered in main stream media.

I agree that "there's much more deserving of our time, reputations and resources", and there are enough other problems with the official story which should make us very skeptic.

And I agree with the question why should "they" not have crashed flight 77 into the Pentagon (and if not, where is it now).

On the other hand, what is offered as evidence that flight 77 really hit the Pentagon is not very convincing either.

Many people have noticed that very few eye witnesses explicitly state that they actually saw the plane crash into the building. Very often they only infer from what they saw before (a plane) and later (explosions, smoke).

It is right that you would expect only the fuselage of the plane to create the hole, but then you would expect the debris of the wings to remain outside the Pentagon.

We see very little debris on the pictures on your referenced sites, compared to other crash sites. If the plane was really torn into tiny pieces on its way through the Pentagon, what caused the precise round exit holes?

There are some pieces of a plane recognizable, but of course, if we take into the account that 9/11 could have been staged, it would have been possible to plant some clearly recognizable parts (e.g. the “archetype” of a piece of debris, the aluminum / red piece with parts of AA on it, which almost looks like a joke, as it is lying singularly on the lawn).

Many of these observations would perhaps fit with Dick Eastman’s Small Plane Hypothesis.

However, this discussion seems not very fruitful, it is limited to a small technical question within the whole 9/11 complex, and this discussion tends to be circular, without any new ideas. As spare time internet researchers, we will probably never be sure. I guess the most important thing with the Pentagon story is that it helped to make 9/11 skepticism popular – which is a good thing for itself.

I don't have as much of a problem with the size of entry hole as the exit hole. After traveling through the newly reinforced outer wall of the first ring we are to believe that the nose exited the third ring sixth wall leaving a circular 7 foot by 7 foot hole.

The nose ,or radome, is a very fragile shell containing electronic navigation devices. To believe it survived the incredibly violent trip through those three buildings and leave a seven foot hole with no identifiable debris is just asking too much.

I basically agree with your analysis and I have always thought the missile theory was stretching reality a bit too much.

I also agree that it is silly that this issue should become a wedge for 9/11 skeptics. The fact is we just don't have enough data to say for sure what hit there, and people should have an open mind.

Personally, however, I find it extremely hard to believe a 757 hit that wall becuase there is just not that much room between the ground and the third floor-- neither of which were damaged by the initial hit.

What should also raise our suspicions somewhat is the American Airlines debris that was found doesn't seem to obviously fit on a 757. If the plane blew up enough to spread debris for a hundred yards or so (as witnesses have claimed), you also would expect to find bodies from the plane littered outside the Pentagon. But no one has ever claimed a thing.

My best guess is there was a smaller Lear-type jet, painted to look like an American Airlines plane, that hit the Pentagon-- this was possibly a drone that was being used in the wargames that were going on during 9/11. A small plane could also explain better the incredibly tight turn that the plane made before impact.

But I can't say for sure, and I am open to other ideas.

On the other hand I am fairly convinced that the pilot was NOT Hani Hanjour or any other Al Qaeda terrorist.

I just wanted to say I checked out that AboveTopSecret site and they did a pretty good job of analysis. My problems with their analysis are:1) they don't say anything about what the wings did, that they should have caused some damage-- there's no mention of the wings in their analysis;2) I'm not sure I buy their superimposition of the plane on the surveillance cmaera footage (the images are so distorted you could put almost anything in there). Plus there are other problems with that footage so I just don't trust it.3) the person says that firemen and police couldn't have been in on the conspiracy. Well I agree, but how would they know if a body in the crash site was from the plane or from the Pentagon? Unless, they specifically said they unstrapped dead passengers from their seats-- which I've never heard. They said they identified the passengers' bodies by DNA, but surely someone could have easily given them samples from another location. This could obviously be solved if there was more info revealed, but right now we just don't know.

I also don't buy Catheard's argument that they won't release the black box data in order to shield the families from further harm. There shouldn't be specific passenger data in the black boxes, and the data is of major public interest.

I'm not ready to believe the remote-controlled plane hypothesis. Global Hawk technology, as reported in open sources, involves high-altitude, long-distance flights, requiring relatively slow and simple communication and control mechanisms. Just before the plane hit the south tower, it was banked at such an angle that indicated a last-second, not quite successful correction which would have required a very short observation, decision and execution loop. IMO this can only have been managed manually, by a human. I would not rule out the possibility that more advanced remote technology has been developed in secret by the big arms/aero companies (sometimes my work takes me out under the airspace of Edwards AFB here in SoCal, and I see all sorts of weird flying shit) but that's entering into a level of pure speculation.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)

It is probably not a coincidence that the defenders of the offical "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics.

In early September 2004, Parade magazine ran a short article that dismissed 9/11 skepticism based on the Pentagon "no plane" claims. Parade reaches tens of millions of people. This is strong evidence that the whole "no plane" story is a set up to discredit.

http://www.parade.com/aol/current/columns/intelligence.htmlLooking for more Intelligence Report from PARADE magazine? Browse our FREE archive.In this week's "Intelligence Report," Lyric Wallwork Winik writes that 9/11 conspiracy theories are growing and that people from all walks of life believe them. How do these theories get started?Investigator Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, says that time is a significant factor in the development of conspiracy theories. "As you get farther away from the real history, the stories get looser with the facts and more outlandish," he says. This was certainly the case with the Kennedy assassination, and Posner says he wonders if we're only in the early stages of 9/11 conspiracy theories.The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. PARADE found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's Web site, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.

Other sites that debunk the "no plane" claims make the issue of complicity dependent on whether the "no plane" claim is true or false. This is a false dichotomy -- that evidence for a large jet at the Pentagon therefore exonerates the government of complicity (it totally avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to respond / defend DC, the way the plane targeted the nearly empty part of the building).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.htmlHere is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

The KEY issue with the Pentagon crash -- to prove US complicity -- is not WHAT hit the Pentagon, but WHERE the Pentagon was hit (in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector).

The fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one method that minimized casualties is not disputed by anyone - it is proven 100%. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for official complicity in 9/11, since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground.

There is not any incontrovertible proof of what did or did not hit the Pentagon, since there aren't any publicly available high resolution photos of the attack.

The "five photos" released by the military have the wrong date stamp on them (a clue that they're tampered with, a subtle statement from the military) and don't show anything conclusive. It is probable they were a deliberate effort to throw people into an endless debate, getting various factions arguing for one theory versus another

The real issue is WHERE it hit.

It is an undisputed fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one manner that minimized casualties, something that neither a flight school drop out nor a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot would have done. This is provable 100% -- and this sole fact shows that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by top echelons of the US military. Those who are inclined to invent a statistic to explain this surreal "coincidence" should realize that the odds were not one in five -- but that the approach by the plane and the precision hit on the least populated part of the Pentagon would have been virtually impossible for any pilot, whether amateur or expert.

It's also worth pointing out that Dov Zakheim, PNAC member, who just quit his job as Pentagon Comptroller (the money man), came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.)

A reasonable case can be made that the photos supposedly showing the Pentagon attack were deliberately doctored to mire the skeptics movement in endless debates and arguments -- which is what has happened. These photos even have the wrong time / date stamp, which is probably a subtle clue. They are of poor quality and there is zero evidence that they are authentic. Most of the media would report that they are authentic (see, the Pentagon has debunked these theories!) but few in the media would actually examine them. Meanwhile, the skeptics community has some people who distrust everything the Pentagon says but then go on to accept these photos as authentic without any evidence that they are.

The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable - the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed / strengthened sector. See http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html (remote control is not provable, but where the Pentagon was hit is not disputed by anyone - a fact that is "hidden in plain sight").

The "no plane" theory has made 9/11 inquiry unpalatable for many "inside the Beltway." Now that this has been accomplished, whether as designed by the intelligence agencies or inadvertently by incompetent 9/11 skeptics, a few fringe 9/11 websites are now claiming that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include physics911.org, 911hoax.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org See http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html for more on this disinformation campaign. But the "no plane at the towers" campaign has not been very successful, partially because the idea for the North Tower is so ridiculous and there is an enormous amount of photographic evidence of a plane at the South Tower (probably a primary goal of the 9/11 conspirators). The disinformation surrounding the South Tower is that the plane was swapped and a military plane crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that either fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it, was a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood of nonsense.)

Are there any sensible arguments anywhere why the Pentagon people would substitute a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane?

Considering that the area around the Pentagon is very populated, the risk of a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation. This is one (of many) arguments against the pod people claims.

It looks like the perpetrators made up the no plane (757) theory to muddy the waters in the months afterwards (which has done wonders to keep the fact that the nearly empty sector was hit away from public consciousness). The original fermentor of this speculation, Thierry Meissan, first claimed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, not a plane, but that campaign did not last very long.

Now, the conspiracy confusionists have moved on to even more ridiculous nonsense -- the webfairy site which claims no plane hit the North Tower (although it admits a plane hit the South Tower), the pod plane claims, napalm bombs on the planes, missiles fired from the planes, no plane in Pennsylvania, to cite the most popular delusions. Some of these claims are probably disinformation to smother actual evidence with distracting nonsense, but some are possibly created (or at least echoed) by people who have no understanding of verifying evidence. These increasingly wilder stories make truth seeking far more difficult. These smokescreens obscure public examination of a large body of incriminating evidence that is proven beyond reasonable doubt plus other evidence that has good standards but is not totally proven.

The most vocal no-plane theorists imply that the eyewitness are part of the coverup. The people stuck in traffic who thought the plane was about to hit them are therefore all government agents spreading disinformation.

It seems that some people have let the "no plane" meme travel for SO long, that admitting the evidence isn't as strong as they think is a problem. Perhaps some people have staked their credibility on this completely unprovable except by tenuous assertion piece of the puzzle that to backtrack on this point would be very difficult.

It is also troubling that some of the loudest proponents of the "no Boeing" are internet personas that have not come to 9/11 truth events organized over the last three years (Gerard Holmgren, and Dick Eastman). Mr. Holmgren claims to live in Australia, which is not a good vantage point to pontificate about controversial events. (If a US based internet persona started promoting theories about events in Canberra, Australia, it would be reasonable for citizens of Australia to demand proof that the author of the theory had some relevant expertise and geographical awareness to discuss these events.) The Eastman character admits to not having ever been to DC.

The fact the hole is the diameter of the plane is very interesting. None of the "no plane" advocates discuss the massive strengthening of this sector of the building. Stating also there's no evidence for Flight 77, as several people do, is really tiring. It's probably the MAIN reason why there's not really any "9/11 truth movement" in DC.

John Judge is a much more serious and credible (and accurate) researcher than Hufschmid, Holmgrem, Webfairy, Eastman, et al. It's not proof that he's right, but he needs to be taken very seriously and with respect.

It is fascinating that the 9/11 skeptics who are most familiar with the DC area and the Pentagon generally are generally the ones who are least convinced by the "no plane" theories.

The Pentagon will never release the photos of the attack. If it was Flight 77, then the endless speculation on this would stop immediately, freeing up skeptics to focus on the real issue (or in some cases, to invent wilder and wilder nonsense). The endless debates is the best possible thing for the perpetrators, since it creates speculation after speculation that makes discerning the truth(s) much more difficult. Very few people in the public give a shit about the plane/no plane pseudo-debate, and release of further photos are of no interest to 99% of the public. If it wasn't Flight 77, then obviously no photo can be released. Either way, the Pentagon gains from not releasing anything.

Some of the arguments used to claim Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon

poor photographic evidence and the coverup of video surveillance

minimal debris on lawn outside of the building, although many eyewitnesses report seeing a rain of airplane parts onto nearby areas

not much evidence of wing, engine and tail damage to the outside of the building, although many of the photos on the web about this claim are highly selective with what they chose to show and not show

the wings should have been left on the outside of the buildin, even though wings colliding into ultra-reinforced concrete bunkers disintegrate into small pieces

Arguments in favor of Flight 77

the hole in the Pentagon is the diameter of the cabin of a 757 (the solid parts)

airplane crashes into reinforced bunkers don't leave large pieces

hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a large plane fly over their positions (drivers stuck in traffic on the nearby highways, workers outside Pentagon, etc), too many for them all to be part of a grand conspiracy.

substituting a missile for the plane would have made the attack much more complicated, involved more technicians with insider knowledge, and not provided any direct benefit to the plotters (especially if the theory about remote control technology being used to direct the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon is ever proved)

the "no plane" theories don't make sense -- why would they bother to substitute? why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building?

The Plane plus missile theory - a desperate attempt to further muddy the waters even though there were hundreds who saw the plane

The idea that the Pentagon attack involved two planes (or a plane plus a missile) and one overshot the Pentagon to land on the runway at nearby National Airport is one of the least likely theories.

There are a LARGE number of large office buildings parallel to the National Airport runway (mostly inhabited by Pentagon workers and contractors). There is also a major highway and elevated rapid rail next to the airport, and surely at least one of them would have seen a plane come from the unprecedented direction of the Pentagon. Jets arriving at National generally follow the river in that vicinity -- a plane that overshot the Pentagon and then made multiple sharp turns to line up with the National runway would have been noticed by LOTS of people. In addition, those that would have seen the plane emerge on the other side of the Pentagon would have looked toward the area that the plane was flying at the exact moment of the flash and smoke cloud from the explosion. In other words, the people on I-395, in the Pentagon's south parking lot, and other vantage points would have been drawn to look at the potential airspace of this extra plane by the blast, it would not have distracted them to look elsewhere. This theory is being promoted most loudly on the internet by Mr. Dick Eastman of Yakima, Washington, who has admitted to this website that he has never been anywhere near Washington, D.C. (the webmaster lived half of his life in that region, and is very familiar with the roads, bike paths and rail line around the Pentagon).

The "two planes" theory requires the first plane to come from a direction that planes landing at National normally do not arrive from. National has a short runway that is only in one direction (because it is built on a former swamp in the river). The odds that the second plane would have been seen are virtually a certainty, and this "theory" needs to have some evidence (of people seeing the plane overfly "Pentagon City" and / or the 14th Street Bridge) before wasting any more of anyone's time with this speculation. None of the people arguing for the various theories have incontrovertible proof of what did or did not hit the Pentagon, since there aren't any publicly available high resolution photos of the attack.

The Shockwave film released in late summer 2004 that purports to document the "no plane" theory

A video clip on the web that was posted to numerous sites in late summer 2004 (see http://www.911truthla.org/flash/pentagon_strike.swf or http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf) supposedly documents the "no plane" at the Pentagon claims. This film is slick propaganda that avoids most of the evidence, flashes quickly from point to point, distracts the viewer with loud rock music (perhaps a type of "bait" to snare youthful web surfers?), and would not qualify as forensic evidence in any courtroom. It is a form of "disinfotainment."

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.htmlThe three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth

1. "Israel did it" and "the Jews were all warned to stay away from the WTC."

While it is true that Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11, and probably was involved at some level as a subcontractor, this story has been the single best method of discrediting 9/11 skeptics to the public, especially in New York City, where about one third of the citizens are jewish. This story has been especially popular in the Arab world, as it plays into the known duplicities of the Israeli and US governments, and helps absolve that community of any possible psychological complicity in the events.Worse, the 9/11 issue has brought out a small parade of anti-semites and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, who use the 9/11 issue as a vehicle to promote hatred, which further serves the interests of those who want to separate the growing communities of 9/11 skeptics from the US public.

It is possible that the only involvement of the Israelis was to pretend to be involved via the "dancing Israelis" filming the burning towers (who were arrested on the New Jersey side of the Hudson after outraged bystanders noted they were taking films and acting happy about the tragedy). There's lots of material on the web suggesting a stronger role for the Israelis in 9/11, but much of this is impossible to verify. Whether these speculations are true or not, the "Israeli connection" was spread all over the internet by countless conspiracy theorists. Perhaps it was merely bait. Perhaps Israel helped monitor the "hijackers." Perhaps at some time in the future the truth of these sorts of claims will be proven by investigators with the skills and resources to verify what is true and what is not.

This website has been smeared by a couple of internet personas as a Zionist front for daring to suggest any of this. Fascist language is all about psychology, not facts. A quick look at http://www.oilempire.us/israel.html will show how this smear campaign is ridiculous.

2. "no 757 hit the Pentagon"

This story was floated in late 2001, after the skeptical examinations of the 9/11 discrepancies began to get very loud on the internet. This story is almost certainly not true, since hundreds (if not more) people saw the plane, and it strains credulity to think that everyone in the vicinity that morning was somehow an agent or dupe of the "inside job" conspirators. See http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details. This has been the primary way to discredit 9/11 in the Washington, D.C. area. The real issue is the fact that the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstruted and strengthened sector, which is something a "terrorist" would not have chosen to do (nor would have been able to do). This is strong circumstantial evidence for remote control technology. Proving its use is probably impossible, but the technology is commercially available.

3. "cellphones can't be used in airplanes"

The articles on the web that discuss cellphones in planes vary in their opinions about the feasibility of this. An experiment to replicate these claims would need to know the exact altitudes and phone companies and be in the same locations -- which is probably impossible to do.

The implication of the "no cell phone calls" claim is that the calls that WERE made were (1) not made from an Airphone (which clearly DO work), and (2) were military psyop campaigns to spread the myth of the cellphone calls about the hijackers.

While it is certainly true that fake audio and video is much easier to make these days, this is probably the meme most calculated to alienate "911 researchers" from the family members. It is very unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation this would require makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone.

This is bitterly disappointing. During the anti-VN war period, one touchstone of the government agent was belief in the Warren Commission, now another such touchstone is belief in the Pentagon fraud. That you profess to believe it indicates that you are the likely fraud.

Just thought i would say hi from new zealand while im here. Doing some blog surfing and found your site. Im looking for some cool styles to help design my own blog. Theres some really amazing blogs about. if you have time check out my site you will find information on how to get Targeted Traffic to your web site or blog. Well when i get my blog running hope you come and check it out.

Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in yourzip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quitea few. MAKE MONEY NOW

If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where are all the passengers, flight attendants, & pilots today? Simply check the passenger list & crew roster--Are these people accounted for or not!!! If not burnt amongst the debris, then where are the bodies??? What really happened to these people? Just disappeared somewhere? Mass kidnapping? Why?

Secondly, the surveillance photos provided by the Pentagon are worse than photos taken from cameras in 2nd-rate convenience stores! These crappy pics (with the wrong date no less) are supposed to be gov't quality?

The FBI within 15 minutes supposedly confiscated the tapes from several surveillance cameras that would show clearly what hit the Pentagon, including the tape from a camera in the Citgo nearby.

None of this has been released.

All they would have to do clear up the whole issue is release that footage, but they haven't done so on "national security" grounds.

You know, the usual excuse.

It's all very odd considering the public was treated to looped footage of the planes hitting the WTC towers. Why won't they let us see what happened at the Pentagon and just end the debate once and for all?

Whenever a feeling of aversion comes into the heart of a good soul,
it's not without significance.
Consider that intuitive wisdom to be a Divine attribute,
not a vain suspicion:
the light of the heart has apprehendedintuitively from the Universal Tablet. - Rumi